Get Project Task Counts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the surprising behavior that an empty object is returned unless opt_fields is specified, which is not covered by annotations. This adds significant value beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second delivers a crucial warning. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the main behavior, the requirement for opt_fields, and the breakdown by completion status. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema already documents both parameters (100% coverage), but the description reinforces the critical requirement for opt_fields and provides a recommended value, going beyond the schema's static description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it gets task counts broken down by completion status, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like asana_get_tasks_for_project, which fetches tasks rather than counts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear context for when to use (obtaining task counts for a project) and a critical usage rule (must include opt_fields). However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.